Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info 98
thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."
Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chickens? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Funny)
True but unlike an election or a hurricane, these patent lawsuits seem to last forever.
Re: (Score:1)
The election sadly seemed to last forever...
Don't worry. The campaigns for the 2014 elections will be starting in 6 months.
Re: (Score:1)
Perception is not the issue.
Smoke is not the issue ... unless it indicates there's a fire. She blocked Samsung evidence in widely criticized ways, and on in some cases less than flimsy technicalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Informative)
I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Informative)
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Informative)
The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:
During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation. Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.
Emphasis mine.
I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert) [groklaw.net]
THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.
Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
Not true (Score:5, Informative)
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
From here [thomsonreuters.com]:
According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house."
That suit against Seagate was over breach of contract and fraud, not patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point is that Seagate is a subsidiary of Samsung, and the "ah-ha moment" he talks about in that post trial interview where after he takes the role of making the case for Apple, may have been more like "ah-ha, I can get some revenge."
Understood - I was simply correcting GP poster who believed since it was a patent case, you could presume bias in any other patent case. His premise was false, so his conclusion was invalid. It could still be true for other reasons, but not for that one.
Re: (Score:2)
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
The juror's behavior amounts to this, while in voir dire for a rape crime.
Judge: "Have you or any one close to you ever been charged with a sex crime?"
Juror: "-sigh- I was charged with indecency for peeing in a dumpster behind a school when I was 19."
And then not mentioning the rape charges 5 years later...
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
The juror wasn't on trial nor was he being audited. He was being vetted as a juror. Not disclosing material information is a waste of everyone's time.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but that's the problem and the lie of omission.
If he had just said yes, then there could have been followup asking for full disclosure. But, since he said yes and then gave a followup immediately it would be natural for anyone to think that his followup was complete. Thus, he's guilty of omitting pertinent details that may have affected his standing.
Here's an example (only hypothetical):
Question: "Have you ever been arrested in Texas?"
My Answer: "Yes, I was detained for disorderly conduct but was acquitted"
Result: Most of the people hearing that would think that was all and go about their business.
The real story: The above is true, but I was also arrested for several other possibly relevant crimes.
What happens when they find out: a shit storm
Sure, the people doing the questioning failed to be exactly precise, but that doesn't mean I wasn't hiding something.
Re:Isn't that a bit of the fox guarding the chicke (Score:4, Insightful)
People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse.
I'm torn on the Samsung issue. Motorola though, and FRAND? Apple was offered the chance to join the FRAND pool and get access for free if they would just cough up some of the patents they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness and said no. Then they wanted to get the same kind of pricing members of the pool get, and Motorola said no. That's somehow wrong? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.
And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate
Samsung didn't own any part of Seagate 19 years ago. And to be honest, if I had a dislike for a company (for example Seagate), and it then turns out the company makes bad business decisions, has to sell up, and someone gobbles up the remains, I wouldn't feel any anger against the new owners. If I was so interested in the company that I actually knew there were new owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung is the Seagate's second largest shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"And how are Seagate and Samsung/Apple connected? Did you read Seagate and think it said Samsung?"
No, I read about Samsung filing a motion for a new trial and learned of its connection to Seagate then. A connection which several other posters have outlined so I won't restate it but suffice it to say that the judgement rendered from this case will affect Seagate by way of affecting Samsung. And Mr. Hogan having basically been bankrupted by Seagate hugely suggests he could not be relied upon for impartiality,
Re: (Score:2)
Having been a party in a similar (in nature) suit might tend to produce a strong bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
No it doesn't. BUT if the judge asks you if you have ever sued, or been sued, and you answer in the negative... When you have been sued, well that could be grounds for dismissal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
So yeah, I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).
Re: (Score:3)
Any improprietory or error Samsung (or Apple, for that matter) believes occurred in the trial court can be (and, rest assured, will be) raised on appeal. Until that, the trial court judge is responsible for the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda of a smear, eh? I'll make an allegation of illiteracy, and now I've got evidence.
Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.
Re: (Score:1)
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of b
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I'll agree she ran this trial like a "why can't we all just love Apple" circus. But when Apple issued it's IPO in 1980, Lucy (born in 1968) hadn't even hit puberty yet.
you know Occam's Razor, right
Something about 12 year old girls probably not holding large stock portfolios from clients of companies they'll work for 20 years later (2000-2002)?
Re: (Score:2)
Quite apart from nit-picking though, it would be a smear if you didn't have any evidence. But such evidence abounds; that you don't feel the need to spell it out in excruciating detail at every opportunity is different.
I'm sure you can provide a link to some of that evidence, since it's abounding all over the place?
Re: (Score:3)
How about Samsung being sanctioned over email retention, despite retaining emails earlier than Apple, even though Apple knew early that legal action would ensue.
You want a link? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120729091631834 [groklaw.net]
Now, fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with this judge? (Score:3, Informative)
She's blocked Samsung's evidence on technicalities all the way through. Samsung should have taken this elsewhere, Koh has proved to be suspiciously in favor of Apple at every turn.
Samsung hasn't lost anything yet (Score:5, Informative)
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points right now, but thanks for the clarification.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
Well, I suppose loosing a suit is better than being slapped with one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-02-25/ [dilbert.com]
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Loosing a suit is a very kind thing to do because it makes it easier for the wearer to breathe and is often much more comfortable. That is, unless you make the suit too loose and it becomes a pain to hold the pants up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Loose a suit that much, and you might just lose it entirely.
Not entirely true (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.
Because the appellate court might not be on the take?
No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.
However this is a good chance for the perhaps-not-so-honorable Lucy Koh to dig herself a little deeper into judicial doo-doo by failing to attempt any remedial action for the jury foreman's rather obvious transgressions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, entirely true (Score:3)
Which is not the same thing as judgement being entered.
True.
Well, that's the dictionary definition of a judgement as a matter of law, but the actual Samsung motion isn't a simple JMOL, it is, strictly speaking, a motio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some video footage of the whole mess [youtu.be] for people needing some more clarifications about the subtleties of this trial
Order (Score:1)
Foreman (Score:5, Funny)
Probably wanted to steal Apple's patented swipe-to-grill gesture.
Re: (Score:1)
Like the next Grisham novel (Score:3)
Re:Like the next Grisham novel (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
1. With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyer know the difference between an iPad and a Samsung tablet when held up in the air? (Very bad preparation and should never have happened to them).
2. With billions at stake, you would know all this and then use it, if convenient, if the case goes against you.
3. Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when the
Re:Like the next Grisham novel (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble?
Not necessarily, but by failing to disclose this he hid the fact not only that he might have an unlikely grudge, but that he'd been involved in patent litigation before and therefore would be drawing on all kinds of legal experience and legal information that:
a) may not be relevant today -- it was 20 years ago
b) may have him drawing on information that wasn't in -this- case.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't Samsung know? You could ask the same question too Apple and then the follow up question, if Apple knew, why didn't they say anything?
Maybe Apple's lawyers knew and thought the fact favored their case. They have no responsibility to do the other side's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Dec 6th Not just about juror's failure to disclose (Score:5, Informative)
It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165 [groklaw.net]
"Apple vs. Samsung" happened 90 years ago (Score:2)
I haven't followed much of this Apple vs. Samsung but this slide from a presentation caught my attention:
The Tube Business in the ’20s
[snip]
Tube Shops’ Challenges
Design around ~250 RCA triode patents
– Enormously difficult task (Samsung vs Apple case)
– RCA had shut down Sylvania’s tube business
– Ordering materials difficult (Corning in NY)
Hired locally (many hams); got resources from IT&T (French engineers)
– Eitel, Litton collaborated with each ot
Transcript of jury selection (Score:5, Interesting)
The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Re: (Score:3)
The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.
Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught [theinquirer.net]
Re: (Score:2)
But if we follow the precedent Koh set by following the letter of the law and disallowing Samsung's evidence on a technicality, she's gonna have to dismiss this juror and hold a new trial on this technicality.